Please be advised that we are currently having problems with some of our users not being able to log into the site. We apologize for this, we are working to address the situation. Thank you for your patience

I have started a new forum thread to re-introduce the possibility that the BCGA Executive and members might see merit in producing what I have called a “Good Conduct” caching policy or document. It is my opinion that the BCGA through it’s website and contact with it’s members could show their support for good geocaching etiquette and responsibility. We might want some statement that the BCGA endorses/supports established geocaching guidelines to become a part of the BCGA “mission statement”.

In a subsequent post I suggested putting such an idea to the membership through online voting, I again present that as an option for consideration.

Here then is my original suggestion.

Irlpguy wrote:

Would it not be within the mandate of the BCGA’s Constitution to produce a members “Good Conduct” document, similar to the one recently adopted as the Conflict of Interest document. It need not be lengthy or specific to any and all circumstances, but simply a guideline to “Good Conduct” that members would be willing to sign onto and model their caching activities upon.

Perhaps instead of asking this question in this thread, the current Executive should seek input from the membership through a separate forum, where members are asked to submit their suggestions, see what the result of the member input is, and make some recommendation to put to the membership for adoption by the BCGA.. I am sure there are members who have ideas on the subject. Perhaps they would feel more inclined to address the issue, if it were presented to them in this manner. If there is no interest from the Membership then at least the BCGA has made an attempt in the right direction, and nothing will be lost.

No matter what is done, nothing will completely eliminate the placement of poorly thought out caches, and make Cache Owners take on the responsibility to ensure their caches are legal and maintained. No Executive member should be asked to enforce any guidelines that might be adopted by the BCGA, just simply endorse them, and make them available to the Membership through the website.

If it only helped a small amount, then it would surely be considered a success.

Would it not be within the mandate of the BCGA’s Constitution to produce a members “Good Conduct” document, similar to the one recently adopted as the Conflict of Interest document. It need not be lengthy or specific to any and all circumstances, but simply a guideline to “Good Conduct” that members would be willing to sign onto and model their caching activities upon

What kind of things might be in such a document?
By signing it, what is a cacher agreeing to?
What are the consequences of not following something you agreed to?

Is the idea that one would be agreeing to something similar to the Cacher's Creed? This is an intregueing idea -- rather (re canadian bacon's question) than having a consequence if the agreement is not followed -- could there be an incentive for FOLLOWING it? I look forward to more discussion...

What kind of things might be in such a document?
By signing it, what is a cacher agreeing to?
What are the consequences of not following something you agreed to?

The “document” or policy statement or whatever name might be applied to this idea, might be as simple as the BCGA making the statement that it approves of and recommends that all it’s members follow the guidelines established by Groundspeak and that it endorses the principals of the Geocachers Creed. I am not proposing that the BCGA come up with a whole new set of guidelines, we have sufficient guidelines in place now, rather I would suggest endorsing those guidelines and asking that it’s members do the same.

“Signing on to something” in this case is figurative, and would only mean that when you become a member of the BCGA that you understand the intent of such a statement and agree to conduct yourself using those guidelines. No more no less.

I have not in any way suggested a consequence be applied for not following something you agree to by becoming a member of BCGA. Perhaps as Family Extremes suggests an incentive could be an inducement to do so, however I Personally do not propose either a reward or a penalty, I am only suggesting that BCGA be proactive in promoting the adherence of established guidelines in whatever means may be available to the BCGA.

I don’t profess to have the answers, I had put forward this thought with the hope it might encourage BCGA members to be more aware of the guidelines and to fashion their caching etiquette and responsibilities around them. If it is not a good idea, then that will likely be indicated by the membership, if this or some other idea presented here might lend itself more to the liking of the membership then I am simply asking for anyone with any idea’s to speak their minds.

I cannot see where any harm could come from such an endorsement and agreement between the BCGA and it’s membership, but ultimately that is up to the membership to decide.

Well, of course I think the BCGA has to support what Groundspeak has for rules, and Park Friendly Caching too. I just worry about making some bureaucratic mess that no one will manage. There could be some more obvious 'go here for info' content on the site. Maybe BCGA V2 will have that better organized when it is put together.

I personally think this is weird. LOL
Sorry, I just don't understand what this would do? What are we trying to achieve by having members sign this? Be better cachers? Nicer cachers? I am not getting it.
I am not saying it isn't a good idea or a bad idea, I am just not getting the idea.

I also see this as being a big back and forth arguement about what is 'caching etiquette' and what isn't between members, and the BCGA.

_________________ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN...not Kelly's, he has his own - ask him.

I think this is a great idea. There's a ton of potential that can be harnessed by succintly stating expectations and asking members to volunteer to adhere to them.

This is very much in line with what I was suggesting in the election thread about needing a voluntary code of conduct (mind you, the devil is really in the details on this). In my volunteer life, we have a team of trainers & evaluators - when I went through & now teach the course that is the gateway to this team, signing onto the voluntary code of conduct is the first thing we do. I've never had anyone step away from it & have not run into anyone who's forgotten what they've agreed to once they've become part of the team.

I personally think this is weird. LOL
Sorry, I just don't understand what this would do? What are we trying to achieve by having members sign this? Be better cachers? Nicer cachers? I am not getting it.
I am not saying it isn't a good idea or a bad idea, I am just not getting the idea.

I also see this as being a big back and forth arguement about what is 'caching etiquette' and what isn't between members, and the BCGA.

Since there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding in what I have proposed as a “Good Conduct” policy for BCGA, which may be entirely due to my inability to state exactly how I vision it. Let me try to present it in this way.

What I do not propose: (but not limited to)

1) No new rules or guidelines be established by BCGA.
2) No interpretation by BCGA of the existing rules or guidelines.
3) No penalty or reward for adherence or non-adherence to the policy.

What I am proposing: (again not limited to)

1) Perhaps in this manner on the website.

The British Columbia Geocaching Association
Supports the following Rules, Guidelines
And initiatives.

Groundspeak Rules and Guidelines – (link)

BC Parks Geocaching Policy – (link)

Surrey Parks & Recreation Geocaching Policy – (link)

Park Friendly Caching – (link)

Geocachers Creed – (link)

2) Members be required to agree to conduct themselves within these guidelines.

A significant amount of new and even more seasoned geocachers, do not know that some of the above mentioned initiatives even exist.

No new rules, no interpretations to argue over, no incentive or penalty for non compliance, simply a statement by BCGA that it supports these things and expects it’s membership to do the same.

The BCGA does have links to these sites but they're scattered. There has been talk in the past of simplifying the front page so people can navigate easier.

In regards to part 2. The BCGA has always been open to new ideas. However, I'm not sure if the membership would like the additional bureaucracy involved in the sign up process. It's hard enough to keep members as it is. Adding additional stipulations to the BCGA membership could seriously hinder the growth of the association.

I still don't think I understand. We have all these links in front of us that we can use when needed, and yet some would like us to sign a form saying we will abide by these rules and guidelines?

I see right now that the Geocreed isn't being followed in many ways, and signing a form isn't going to change anything. Unless there is someone enforcing it, it isn't going to work. All one would be doing is adding work to the membership process.

I don't think signing a form is the answer to the problem, I think education is.

I would love to see on this forum some of the seasoned cachers opening themselves up to the newer cachers to take them out caching, teaching them the ropes, the ABC's, the 123's. Yes we have our 101's but still it doesn't hurt to have everyone hang out and cache together

By 'hands on training', I think that is where the Good Conduct and Proper Caching Placement is going to come about, not from signing a form.

JMO

_________________ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN...not Kelly's, he has his own - ask him.

I think this is a great idea. There's a ton of potential that can be harnessed by succintly stating expectations and asking members to volunteer to adhere to them.

This would provide information for new cachers. It would also engage and empower all of us as members of BCGA, by making expectations and responsibilities clear.
It would be most helpful to have all those links easily available on the home page.
Much of the content in the links mentioned in this thread involve FAQs.
Anything that can be done to assist B.C. cachers in making wise placement decisions is a good thing. It makes our reviewer's job a happier one

I don't believe IRLPGUY wants anyone to sign anything. Right? I believe he wishes that the membership endorses a "Good Conduct Policy". If the whole membership says "We will do our best to follow good caching practices" wouldn't the caches and the areas around caches be more eco-friendly.

The only problem I see, is that NEW CACHERS know nothing about the BCGA. Only through events like Kelly's recent 101 do cachers ever get this information and/or hear about the BCGA.

A cacher(who can speak up if they want) said that there should be standard "Intro to geocaching" events held regularly around the province where the BCGA signs off on recommended material. It's easy enough to see who the new cachers are by reading and monitoring the logs of the easier more popular caches in the area. Emailing these people directly with a personal invite is the only way to reach these people and it worked for Kelly's event.

I don't believe IRLPGUY wants anyone to sign anything. Right? I believe he wishes that the membership endorses a "Good Conduct Policy". If the whole membership says "We will do our best to follow good caching practices"

My take on this is Irlpguy would like to see all BCGA members agree (at the time they become a member) to accept a BCGA code of caching conduct. Additionally, all the pertinent information & FAQs(Groundspeak & Cachers Creed, all Cdn. & local Park info etc.) be easily accessed on the BCGA website.

I would like to present this scenario: (“he” not being gender specific)

The Executive Member designated to liaison with the representative of BC Parks (or other such body) suddenly finds that this person is new to the position, while he is familiar with the concept of geocaching, he wishes to understand how BCGA promotes or will be promoting “Good Caching Policies” to all of it’s members and prospective members. At the moment we could point him to the website, perhaps if he looked hard enough he would find a link to other geocaching sites and the BC Parks Geocaching policy, , but nowhere can he find a “Statement” that the BCGA supports and promotes this concept.

At this point would it not be grand to have this “Statement” right on the front page of the website, along with the links to the Rules, Guidelines, the Geocachers Creed and other such things as might be deemed appropriate. Now you are able to point to this public endorsement, and say that the BCGA does indeed support and promote responsible caching, and in fact it asks that it’s members endorse this “Good Caching Policy” when they become a member.

I would think this might go a long way in swaying a skeptic in a favorable direction, no matter whom the BCGA might find itself dealing with in the future.

As a footnote, the “Good Caching Policy” while not specifically intended to do so, could provide a valuable tool toward educating new cachers, by providing links to very helpful and informative information for them and the caching community as a whole, it is not intended to replace or reduce the amount of education that BCGA should be involved in, as in the 101 events. Educating new cachers that might become “prospective” members should certainly continue to be a priority.

I believe that everyone should be able to become a BCGA member without any additional paperwork.

Having, said that there could be a way around it by introducing levels of membership. Regular BCGA members could become eco-members or premium members or whatever title the BCGA chooses to use. They'd have the special status beside their handle on the forums or some other privilege if they agree to certain geocaching rules of conduct. It would be a status thing online more than anything else but perhaps peer pressure may win out in the end and bring responsible geocaching to the forefront.

Normally, I would not suggest levels of membership since I think it is elitist. However, everyone would have the choice in this case.

The problem will be whether people that agree to the code of conduct truly adhere to the policy. The last thing I'd want to see is the BCGA staff flooded with emails from geocachers stating why so in so shouldn't have the status.

Isn't signing/agreeing to a code of conduct additional paperwork? It's definitely another hurdle to become a member.

Perhaps it might be viewed as "agreeing to the terms and conditions of membership".......this might be helpful to the executive should they want to review a member's standing if they had cause/reason to deny or retract their status. So far, there is no criteria in this regard.
I don't see how extra paper work is involved as this is all done on line anyhow.

Isn't signing/agreeing to a code of conduct additional paperwork? It's definitely another hurdle to become a member.

Only new members are required to sign any document to become a member of the BCGA, those who are currently members would, by applying for renewal be “signing on” to such a policy. The addition of a line or two at some point in the Membership Application Form such as : By applying for membership in BCGA you agree to follow the “Good Conduct Policy” as outlined by the BCGA, would take care of the paperwork for new members. The same line or lines in the request for membership renewal email, would take care of the existing membership.

I believe a proposal to offer differing memberships would be a significant step in the wrong direction, should we not want all of the members to willingly agree to abide by what is already established geocaching rules and guidelines, we would only be asking that they affirm that commitment when they apply for membership. I do not see this as a detriment to becoming a member of BCGA. By not offering any special status there would be no flood of emails asking why someone should or should not have a different status.

Has everyone read the “Terms of Use Agreement” you sign off on when you apply for membership in Groundspeak. By agreeing to that document you are agreeing to follow all of the rules and guidelines established by Goundspeak. If you don’t do that, you won’t be getting a “handle” and you won’t be geocaching through Groundspeak.

Nothing. There is nothing the BCGA could do to a member who goes against the code-of-conduct. The association can reject membership for those who do not 'agree' when they sign up. They can refuse membership to those who will not 'agree' to it when they renew. Very few people read 'agreements', like when you install software, or even sign up at Groundspeak. They only mean something to the people who have lawyers to support them, and breaking them costs a organization money, or if you do something illegal. The association does not have a profit motive, does not have lawyers , patents, or the responsibility to enforce someone else's rules.

A good number of cachers in BC are not BCGA members, and cache just fine. So not being a BCGA member will not stop anybody from caching if they have some intent of going against a code of conduct.

The type of person who is a member, has a bigger interest in the sport probably anyways, and are more aware of the rules than most. Well that would be my supposition anyways.

There just needs to be an organized set of resources to find GROUNDSPEAKS guidelines as well as any links to any gov't rules that may apply in our area. At any education sessions the BCGA sponsors the rules should be talked about.

Nothing. There is nothing the BCGA could do to a member who goes against the code-of-conduct. The association can reject membership for those who do not 'agree' when they sign up. They can refuse membership to those who will not 'agree' to it when they renew.
A good number of cachers in BC are not BCGA members, and cache just fine. So not being a BCGA member will not stop anybody from caching if they have some intent of going against a code of conduct.

The type of person who is a member, has a bigger interest in the sport probably anyways, and are more aware of the rules than most. Well that would be my supposition anyways.

There just needs to be an organized set of resources to find GROUNDSPEAKS guidelines as well as any links to any gov't rules that may apply in our area. At any education sessions the BCGA sponsors the rules should be talked about.

Well said CB, your assessment of what BCGA can do reflects exactly what could or should be done. The rules should certainly be discussed at all education sessions.

Perhaps the majority of geocachers in the Province are not currently members of BCGA. Being a member, is not a guarantee that you will cache in a responsible manner, however if you wish to become a member or continue to be a member of BCGA you would be stating that it was your “intention” to conduct yourself within the “Good Conduct Policy” of the BCGA. Hopefully those willing to agree to such a statement would indeed be more aware of the rules and would be more likely to abide by them.

On the part of BCGA, the Policy could be very simple and basic, merely a collection of already established rules and guidelines posted on the Home page in a manner such as below (the manner in which being left up to the website guru).

BCGA “Good Conduct Policy”
The British Columbia Geocaching Association
And It’s Members Support And Agree
To Abide By The Following Rules
Guidelines And Initiatives.

Included (links) or link to another page.

Since the Association is Province wide, links to all established rules in the province should be provided.

Well said CB, your assessment of what BCGA can do reflects exactly what could or should be done. The rules should certainly be discussed at all education sessions.

It is what 'could' be done, but I personally do not want a code of conduct to be agreed to for association membership. It is not the mandate of the association to have other organizations or businesses rules agreed to.

In sports organizations, there are long-established codes of conduct that may be referred to, but we need to distinguish between a code of conduct and a set of rules. In each sport, there is a rule book, and this helps officials make rulings.
Codes of conduct, on the other hand, are guidelines which are published to encourage good conduct on a day-today basis. They are often unenforceable, but assist the sport in creating a positive culture withing the sporting community. For example, there is a tennis rulebook which the umpire will use to make his/her rulings during matches. Codes of conduct (ie USTA Code of Conduct) are not used by referees. Clubs and associations use them but they cannot be used as the basis for any level of sanction.
Geocaching has no officiating component (unless we refer to Groundspeak's reviewers who have authority only over what is published on its website). Certainly BCGA's Directors have no authority to make rulings on matters of conduct. At most it can adjudicate on events it hosts. Daily caching is really an honor system and a Code of Conduct can be encouraged and supported, but it is a symbolic gesture.
BCGA does have a role, though, in encouraging ethical and responsible geocaching in the province. A code of conduct may be helpful, although it is only one tool in supporting the growth of caching.

I tend to be passive, with a strong sense of honor. I trust myself to do the right thing for me, and I know I will. Forcing me to sign something that I would already do anyway, causes an extreme backlash from me. If I was required to sign (check box, w/e) to maintain my membership, I would move on and find a less restrictive organization or none at all. I guess for me its about trust, and forcing me to answer for my actions by someone that has no right demanding an answer.

I am reminded of a quote from Monty Pythons "The Holy Grail"

Quote::

King Arthur: Old woman.
Dennis: Man.
King Arthur: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
Dennis: I'm 37.
King Arthur: What?
Dennis: I'm 37. I'm not old.
King Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man".
Dennis: Well you could say "Dennis".
King Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis.
Dennis: Well you didn't bother to find out did you?
King Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind you looked...
Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.
King Arthur: Well I am king.
Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?

I am not saying that quote is totally relevant, I just always get a kick out of it.....

_________________Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I wouldn't sign this either, my reason would be simple. Everyone has a different take on the guidelines. Reminds me of what could happen in a condo strata were a few set the rules and if you don't like it move, even they don't break any BC laws. This could go south and rules or expectations that don't apply at geocaching.com do at our site the BCGA.
I know this is not the intent, but....

Here is what I propose which is close to what Irlpguy has proposed.

How about just a simple MISSION STATEMENT , this could be posted on the front page

I wouldn't sign this either, my reason would be simple. Everyone has a different take on the guidelines. Reminds me of what could happen in a condo strata were a few set the rules and if you don't like it move, even they don't break any BC laws. This could go south and rules or expectations that don't apply at geocaching.com do at our site the BCGA.
I know this is not the intent, but....

Here is what I propose which is close to what Irlpguy has proposed.

How about just a simple MISSION STATEMENT , this could be posted on the front page

There's nothing to say that this couldnt be a living document - just like a set of strata bylaws with adjustments being made as the membership deems appropriate.

The thing is that we have a bunch of "guidelines" put upon the game by groundspeak (don't get me started about why we have "guidelines" and not "rules" - that whole "no precedence" thing is equivalent to "no accountability" to me )

We also have unwritten tribal rules. For example, it wasnt long ago I saw a post that alluded to certain guidelines about posting in reference to specific caches or cachers & what the consequences would be. This caused me to perk up a bit - i couldnt find anything written anywhere that said we COULDNT do that. There was also another recent post that made reference to the practice of making use of an individual's real name in a forum - again, an unwritten rule, or is it just someone's personal preference? Don't know. My point is that it's not really defined anywhere.

There's another set of problems we seem to have - or at least, I think we have. This involves how we interact with each other at a basic level. We tend not to give open, honest & accountable feedback - and when we do get any feedback that isnt all roses, some of us (myself included) have struggled to accept it as the gift it really is. I can't help but ask myself why? We could collectively build a culture within our association about how we deliver & treat feedback. We could also build a culture that defines how we interact with each other.

This doesnt mean we all have to agree with each other all the time. That certainly would be NO fun (especially for people like me), but there are ways we can express differing opinions and logical arguments without throwing mud around the internet.

All that said, there were some posts about individuals not wanting to sign onto anything extra. So be it. That's the beauty of a game based entirely on honour - having a VOLUNTARY code of conduct. You're the only one who will know whether you're really acting in the spirit of the community - and, i'd suggest that deep down, almost all of us already do according to what we know & understand about it (there's always SOMEONE though isnt there?!?)

It sure seems like a healthy debate item to me.

Why can't we say that it's not okay to name a cache in the forums?
Why can't we say that as members of the BCGA we will adhere to the guidelines set forth by groundspeak?
Why can't we all commit to giving open, honest and accountable feedback?
Why can't we all commit to accepting feedback for what it is and not get wrought up by what it isnt?

Oh yes, we went to see the Fab Four last night & i'm channeling peace, love & oh heck, i forget.

When any one of us first applied for a handle with Groundspeak we accepted certain rules and guidelines.
Every time we place a cache, we tick little boxes that also agree to those very same rules and guidelines.
It should not be THAT difficult to have the same basic principals reinforced by BCGA & have them applied to its membership, should it?
As Chewy says, there is lots of room for debate here.
I doubt that Irlpguy was inferring we should adopt a Draconian list of rules and regs.....and I supect he was tossing the concept out to the membership to encourage a dialogue that would result in something solid & useful for reference for all BCGA members with regards to a Code of Conduct.

Gotta go & get the tree decorated..........Yuletide Greetings to EVERYONE

Groundspeak is a totally different situation altogether. By listing geocaching sites worldwide they have to protect themselves. Hence, guidelines stipulating that there is permission to hide a cache in a given spot etc. The BCGA doesn't approve geocaches.

The BCGA staff has been discussing this topic. Although I can't speak for everyone at this point in time most directors I've talked to agree that there should be more emphasis on environmental concerns and geocaching etiquette. When the new website format is introduced there will be several changes that will hopefully please most members.

Wouldn't be clicking thru Groundspeak each time we set up a cache (those two boxes) stating that we abide by the rules and guidelines set forward?

It would indeed..provided one takes the time to read what one is agreeing to accept.
It is a "disclaimer" just like the info on the back of a bus ticket. However, by agreeing to the terms (ie: ticking those boxes), one is now accepting them.

The BCGA staff has been discussing this topic. Although I can't speak for everyone at this point in time most directors I've talked to agree that there should be more emphasis on environmental concerns and geocaching etiquette. When the new website format is introduced there will be several changes that will hopefully please most members.

What the BCGA should communicate to members and the world via the website has been a topic for years now. It changes with every executive but some traditions are always upheld.

The membership is responding and contributing constantly through this website and email.

At this point in time, the original idea of a "code of conduct" isn't sitting well but it echoes comments made throughout the years that the BCGA should place emphasis on environmental concerns and geocaching etiquette.

What the BCGA should communicate to members and the world via the website has been a topic for years now. It changes with every executive but some traditions are always upheld.

The membership is responding and contributing constantly through this website and email.

At this point in time, the original idea of a "code of conduct" isn't sitting well but it echoes comments made throughout the years that the BCGA should place emphasis on environmental concerns and geocaching etiquette.

I don't understand how a code of conduct would not be "sitting well", if this has been echoed throughout the years. If this is indeed an ongoing topic that members have expressed opinions, there needs to be a venue/thread to this purpose..........and BCGA membership should have an opportunity to contribute, don't ya think

Groundspeak is a totally different situation altogether. By listing geocaching sites worldwide they have to protect themselves. Hence, guidelines stipulating that there is permission to hide a cache in a given spot etc. The BCGA doesn't approve geocaches.

The BCGA staff has been discussing this topic. Although I can't speak for everyone at this point in time most directors I've talked to agree that there should be more emphasis on environmental concerns and geocaching etiquette. When the new website format is introduced there will be several changes that will hopefully please most members.

There is a definite difference between BCGA and Groundspeak. Groundspeak does not promote the placement of caches in any particular location, they do however insist that if you want your cache listed by them, you must agree to some terms and conditions, rules and guidelines, which govern the placement of all caches, as well your cache must be approved by a reviewer. On the other hand BCGA promotes the placement of caches by it’s members in BC Parks and other Parks through a partnership, but does not require these same members support or adhere to any specific rules or guidelines.

While it is not necessary to submit a cache to BCGA for approval, is the BCGA through it’s BC Parks partnership initiatives (Blue Sky or others) not saying that they approve the members caches that are being placed in these parks. By selecting certain members to place these caches, in effect also partnering with that Cache owner, are they not giving their approval to that cache?

BCGA has been the beneficiary of a very large sum of money, if wisely spent, I have no doubt this money will benefit all cachers throughout the Province. As a representative body, BCGA should be doing everything possible to promote “all” good caching practices, with the expectation that it’s members also follow those established “Good Caching” practices. I believe it is important to demonstrate it is doing that, through a “Mission Statement” or “Good Conduct Policy” and whatever else might be appropriate.

It might be informative to the members, to have the staff/executive express their opinions on this topic. No one is conducting a vote, merely a discussion of these ideas through the forums. It is difficult to understand the position of the Executive of BCGA without their individual input.

Finally, would not the agreement of members to follow established rules and guidelines not naturally tend to lead to addressing most environmental and other caching concerns?

Groundspeak is a totally different situation altogether. By listing geocaching sites worldwide they have to protect themselves. Hence, guidelines stipulating that there is permission to hide a cache in a given spot etc. The BCGA doesn't approve geocaches.

The BCGA staff has been discussing this topic. Although I can't speak for everyone at this point in time most directors I've talked to agree that there should be more emphasis on environmental concerns and geocaching etiquette. When the new website format is introduced there will be several changes that will hopefully please most members.

There is a definite difference between BCGA and Groundspeak. Groundspeak does not promote the placement of caches in any particular location, they do however insist that if you want your cache listed by them, you must agree to some terms and conditions, rules and guidelines, which govern the placement of all caches, as well your cache must be approved by a reviewer. On the other hand BCGA promotes the placement of caches by it’s members in BC Parks and other Parks through a partnership, but does not require these same members support or adhere to any specific rules or guidelines.

While it is not necessary to submit a cache to BCGA for approval, is the BCGA through it’s BC Parks partnership initiatives (Blue Sky or others) not saying that they approve the members caches that are being placed in these parks. By selecting certain members to place these caches, in effect also partnering with that Cache owner, are they not giving their approval to that cache?

BCGA has been the beneficiary of a very large sum of money, if wisely spent, I have no doubt this money will benefit all cachers throughout the Province. As a representative body, BCGA should be doing everything possible to promote “all” good caching practices, with the expectation that it’s members also follow those established “Good Caching” practices. I believe it is important to demonstrate it is doing that, through a “Mission Statement” or “Good Conduct Policy” and whatever else might be appropriate.

It might be informative to the members, to have the staff/executive express their opinions on this topic. No one is conducting a vote, merely a discussion of these ideas through the forums. It is difficult to understand the position of the Executive of BCGA without their individual input.

Finally, would not the agreement of members to follow established rules and guidelines not naturally tend to lead to addressing most environmental and other caching concerns?

I enjoy the BCGA as a way to hook up with other local geocachers, and a way to enjoy projects that one or two people couldn't do on their own.

The last thing I want to see from the BCGA is a code of conduct that I would need to check off in order to be a member in good standing. If something that that isn't enforced, than it's moot, and if it's enforced, than the BCGA becomes an unnecessary cache police. Either way, I'm sure that we have better things to do.

Groundspeak is a totally different situation altogether. By listing geocaching sites worldwide they have to protect themselves. Hence, guidelines stipulating that there is permission to hide a cache in a given spot etc. The BCGA doesn't approve geocaches.

The BCGA staff has been discussing this topic. Although I can't speak for everyone at this point in time most directors I've talked to agree that there should be more emphasis on environmental concerns and geocaching etiquette. When the new website format is introduced there will be several changes that will hopefully please most members.

While it is not necessary to submit a cache to BCGA for approval, is the BCGA through it’s BC Parks partnership initiatives (Blue Sky or others) not saying that they approve the members caches that are being placed in these parks. By selecting certain members to place these caches, in effect also partnering with that Cache owner, are they not giving their approval to that cache?

Ummm... NO.

IRLPGUY wrote:

Finally, would not the agreement of members to follow established rules and guidelines not naturally tend to lead to addressing most environmental and other caching concerns?

After sorting out the double negatives I think you're suggesting in summar that the BCGA become a local cache police detachment. This isn't their role at all.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum